VICP Registry Case Source Bundle
Canonical URL: https://vicp-registry.org/case/USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00130
Package ID: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00130
Petitioner: Sandra Eskenazi
Filed: 2021-01-06
Decided: 2023-10-27
Vaccine: influenza
Vaccination date: 2020-10-10
Condition: left-sided shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA)
Outcome: dismissed
Award amount USD: 

AI-assisted case summary:
Sandra Eskenazi filed a petition alleging that the influenza vaccine she received on October 10, 2020, resulted in a left-sided shoulder injury related to vaccine administration (SIRVA), a Table injury. Following the respondent's assessment and a review of the record, the Special Master issued an Order to Show Cause for Petitioner's failure to establish the six-month severity requirement. In response, Petitioner filed a Motion for a Decision Dismissing her Petition, stating that an investigation of the facts and science demonstrated she would be unable to prove entitlement to compensation. The decision noted that to receive compensation, Petitioner must prove either a Table Injury or that her injury was actually caused by the vaccine. The record did not disclose preponderant evidence of a Table Injury or that the injury was vaccine-caused, nor did it contain a medical expert's opinion. Consequently, the Special Master denied Petitioner's claim for compensation and dismissed the case for insufficient proof.

Theory of causation field:
Table

Public staged source text:

================================================================================
DOCUMENT 1: USCOURTS-cofc-1_21-vv-00130-0
Date issued/filed: 2023-10-27
Pages: 2
Docket text: PUBLIC DECISION (Originally filed: 08/23/2023) regarding 37 DECISION of Special Master. Signed by Chief Special Master Brian H. Corcoran. (kp) Service on parties made.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case 1:21-vv-00130-UNJ Document 40 Filed 10/27/23 Page 1 of 2
In the United States Court of Federal Claims
OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS
No. 21-130V
SANDRA ESKENAZI, Chief Special Master Corcoran
Petitioner, Filed: August 23, 2023
v.
SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES,
Respondent.
Bridget Candace McCullough, Muller Brazil, LLP, Dresher, PA, for Petitioner.
Catherine Elizabeth Stolar, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for
Respondent.
DECISION1
On January 6, 2021, Sandra Eskenazi filed a petition for compensation under the
National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.2 (the
“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that the influenza (“flu”) vaccine she received on
October 10, 2020, resulted in a left-sided shoulder injury related to vaccine administration
(“SIRVA”), a Table injury. Am. Pet. at 1, ECF No. 19.
Following Respondent’s informal assessment and a review of the record, I issued
an Order to Show Cause for Petitioner’s failure to establish the six-month severity
requirement. ECF Nos. 29, 35. In response to my Order, Petitioner filed a Motion for a
Decision Dismissing her Petition. ECF No. 36. In her motion, Petitioner indicated that “[a]n
1 Because this Ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action taken in this case, it must be made
publicly accessible and will be posted on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, and/or
at https://www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/uscourts/national/cofc, in accordance with the E-Government Act
of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2018) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government
Services). This means the Ruling will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In accordance
with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information,
the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I agree that
the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public access.
2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease
of citation, all section references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. §
300aa (2018).

Case 1:21-vv-00130-UNJ Document 40 Filed 10/27/23 Page 2 of 2
investigation of the facts and science supporting her case has demonstrated to
[P]etitioner that she will be unable to prove that she is entitled to compensation in the
Vaccine Program.” Id. ¶ 1. Petitioner further indicated that she “understands that a
decision by the Special Master dismissing her petition will result in a judgment against
her. She has been advised that such a judgment will end all of her rights in the Vaccine
Program.” Id. ¶ 3.
To receive compensation under the Program, Petitioner must prove either 1) that
she suffered a “Table Injury” – i.e., an injury falling within the Vaccine Injury Table –
corresponding to one of her vaccinations, or 2) that she suffered an injury that was
actually caused by a vaccine. See Sections 13(a)(1)(A) and 11(c)(1). Examination of the
record does not disclose preponderant evidence that Petitioner suffered her alleged injury
for at least six-months or a “Table Injury.” Further, the record does not contain a medical
expert’s opinion or any other persuasive evidence indicating that Petitioner’s alleged
injury was vaccine-caused.
Under the Vaccine Act, a petitioner may not be awarded compensation based on
the petitioner’s claims alone. Rather, the petition must be supported by either the medical
records or by a medical opinion. Section 13(a)(1). In this case, the record does not contain
medical records or a medical opinion sufficient to demonstrate that the vaccinee was
injured by a vaccine. For these reasons, in accordance with Section 12(d)(3)(A),
Petitioner’s claim for compensation is denied and this case is dismissed for
insufficient proof.
In the absence of a motion for review filed pursuant to RCFC Appendix B, the Clerk
of Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this decision.3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Brian H. Corcoran
Brian H. Corcoran
Chief Special Master
3 Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 11(a), entry of judgment can be expedited by the parties’ joint filing of notice
renouncing the right to seek review.
2